On 12/18/2015 01:16 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> Is this just for informational purposes, or is this something you are
> looking to have committed? I originally thought the former, but now
> I'm wondering if I misinterpreted your intent. I have a hard time
> getting excited about committing something that would, unless I'm
> missing something, pretty drastically increase the overhead of running
> with LWLOCK_STATS...
>
Yeah, so unless other people using LWLOCK_STATS find the additional
information of use (w/ the extra overhead), I think we can mark it as
"Returned with feedback" or "Rejected".
Alternative, I can redo the patch requiring an additional #define -
f.ex. LWLOCK_STATS_QUEUE_SIZES
Best regards, Jesper
